A Florida doctor has been jailed for 33 years and nine months over child porn offences.
Dr Richard Carino, of New Port Richey, Florida, received the harsh sentence on Monday at a sentencing hearing following his July jury conviction on six counts of distributing images of child abuse. Images were found on PCs maintained by …

harsh?

Pics...

Let's hope the 33 yrs and 9 months are hell

And also that the son of a bitch serves them all. I would assume that a doctor has more idea of the physical and mental pain that a child would suffer when being abused and the after effects that are probably lifelong and in view of that fact deserves an extreme sentence full of unpleasantness. Hanging is too good for the bastard.

Good, but on the upside...

If you hate paedos so much, why don't you live there.

Not many people willing to stick up for a pervert are there? I'll say it, yes 33 years is "harsh". At his age that could easily be life. Did he deserve it? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. I've never heard a convincing argument for how sharing child porn, for free, on KaZaA supports real abuse. Doesn't that "hurt artists"? Or does he deserve it simply for being a sick bastard? Is it just a thought crime in disguise then?

Not Harsh enough

in my opinion, to me, as an ex cop, rapists and child abusers/ molesters NEVER get a harsh enough sentence, they should dream up some lovely painful ways to deal with these guys, and these days, it´s impossible to get the wrong guy, DNA is irrefutable!!

Here's hoping

Here's hoping the guy gets what he deserves while in jail. I sincerely hope inmates hate child abusers as much as I've been led to believe.

Re: If you hate... By Paul --

Fuck you. Oh, and try forming a title that makes sense next time. There are plenty of people willing to "stick up for a pervert". Just look at the "extreme" porn law, and you'll see that. There are *NOT*, however, many people willing to stick up for a child abuser or for someone who gets sexually excited by images and videos of child abuse.

No, distributing pictures is *NOT* the same as "thought crime", and only a truly fucking retarded idiot would even think such a thing. You want to know why people say distributing images or videos of child abuse "supports real abuse"? BECAUSE IT FUCKING DOES, YOU IGNORANT TWAT! It's not a difficult concept -- someone who gets sexually excited by images or videos of child abuse wants to collect images and videos of child abuse. Are you still with me, or did I lose you already? Don't worry, it's just a little further... In order to provide images and videos to these sick fucks, you need to ENGAGE IN CHILD ABUSE. Do you see how simple a concept it is? Unless you're trying to say that the images and videos are merely simulated child abuse, which I think we can safely assume is not the case.

And since you're obviously too stupid to think, I'll also inform you that when you distribute something, you are actively promoting and encouraging it. Sharing music on file-sharing services encourages others to listen to the music. In exactly the same way, sharing images of child abuse encourages others to share (and produce) their own images.

Now, if you get sexually excited by the thought of child abuse, but have never engaged in child abuse and do not solicit any media (images, videos, magazines, etc) containing child abuse, then I would support you and your rights. As long as you are not harming anyone, and are not promoting or encouraging the harming of anyone, I have no problem with you. I'll think you're a sick individual and would strongly suggest psychological help, but I would still fight for your rights. When you start viewing child abuse, distributing media containing child abuse, or physically abusing a child, however, you have crossed the line, and I'd like few things more than to remove you from the planet.

33 is harsh

Fighting crime isent about getting even its about crime prevention and rehibilitation.

Not knowing the details of the case its imposible to say what he deserves however 33 years does sound harsh.

Mothers, farthers, cops and so on have to keep one thing in mind. This isent about you or your child. Its not about making you or the victims feel good. Its not about revenge. Its about crime prevention and rehibilitation. Now i n this case the later is very hard to do as 33 years do more harm than good for his flawed psyche. but then again thats what most people here seem to want. To do harm to someone else. Nice...

@paul - are you mad?

You don't see a causal link between actions the perpetuate and stimulate the market for child porn and abuse?

Child porn BY DEFINITION means a child was abused. In a horrific way, that will scar them for life. Any deliberate act that circulates or promotes media containing child porn is at least complicit in its creation.

Saying "oh, but they pirated it and didn't pay the creators so it's not a problem" is just bizarre. How much of it is "amateur" stuff by twisted individuals just doing it for the kicks of passing it on to other peadophiles?

If you consumer child porn, or share child porn, you are guilty of a horrific crime.

@Paul

Are you trolling? If not, RTFA. The images and videos he shared were of children being abused, violently. What about that isn't supporting "real" abuse? Even if he didn't produce the images and video himself, he is perpetuating them, and, by making this material available, was making such acts appear acceptable.

@Leon

33 years

I love the last comment in the article:

Carino has lost his licence to practice medicine

Yeah, I'm sure that a big worry to him....

@Paul. While I don't fully agree with the "sharing porn doesn't support real abuse". I do understand that even if no-one shared these images then the people who make them would probably still make them for their own benefit, so sharing them wouldn't wipe out kiddie fiddling, but it may reduce some as I'm sure some people do it just to sell the images.

I also agree that 33 years does seems harsh. Now 33 years isn't enough for someone who does the kiddie fiddling, or makes the images, but just for looking at them it does seem harsh. And yeah, whats next, 40 years for thinking about it?

Posting Anon, becuase soon even entering into a discussion on this topic may soon land you in jail.

Stop cheering, start thinking

Of course it's disproportionate. It's for looking at pictures.

He looked at and shared pictures of dreadful things. But the pictures weren't themselves the events depicted, and he didn't commit the crimes shown in them. He just liked that kind of stuff. This sentence isn't really for what he did, it's for what he is (or what people think he is). Paul's comment is right: it's a punishment for thought crime.

It's not illegal to be a paedophile. One might as well criminalize liking the color green. It *is* illegal to do harmful bad things, motivated by paedophilia. Any sanctions imposed by society have to be proportionate to the harm the acts have done. That isn't the case here.

Still, he's luckier than some. A Google search for "Morton Berger" will tell you all about just how far the 'protecting the children' lunacy has gone in parts of the US. Your domestic readership should beware: where the Americans lead the UK follows.

Insanely harsh sentence

While jail for molesting children makes sense, as does for making, buying, and selling child pornography, it is completely insane to have harsh custodial sentences for simply possessing offensive films and photos. I mean—does watching people being killed on the news make me a killer? A person does no harm to anyone by having these bits on their computer. And how easy it would to plant them on someone else's machine.

For this fellow's egregious distribution activity, possibly a couple of months in a low-security might be appropriate. For his actual molestation, that is where things get serious.

Somehow, I get the feeling that a lot of the hysterical outrage about child porn is generated by people without much insight into themselves compensating for their own desires and actions.

@Leon Prinsloo troll

"in my opinion, to me, as an ex cop, rapists and child abusers/ molesters NEVER get a harsh enough sentence, they should dream up some lovely painful ways to deal with these guys, and these days, it´s impossible to get the wrong guy, DNA is irrefutable!!"

DNA is not irrefutable and only establishes contact with an object. I broadly agree with the rest but would you say this guy is a rapist, child abuser or molester?

As far as I can see (and I'm prepared to be corrected) his crime is to hold and share the wrong sort of images for no personal gain.

@Leon Prinsloo

I didn't realise DNA was transferrable on images sent over KaZaa, but you do raise an interesting point.

The article itself seems to vaguely suggest that the miscreant created the images himself and participated in the abuse, in which case 33 years may be a tough sentence, but not too harsh. Multiple rape and abuse of minors - yep, chuck away the key.

On the other hand, if he merely sent images that he had received from another source, as is often the case in such instances, then perhaps 33 years is excessive.

@Leon Prinsloo

Is that a serious post or trollbaiting?

DNA isn't irrefutable and to consider it so is a fallacy.

With regards to the sentence, I find it hard to comprehend how society can condemn a man more severely for looking at an historical record of abuse that has already happened and that he played no direct part in, than if he'd actually hurt someone himself.

There have been many people who have done much worse than look at a few pictures and received much lesser sentences.

@not harsh enough crowd

If people are gonna get locked up 33 years for looking at child porn, then people who look at child porn may aswell just rape real children then kill them, they'd probably get a similar sentance, and if they kill the child and get rid of the body in a suitable fashion they'd probably get rid of all the evidence of sexual abuse.

So this sentance may just condemn a few more children to rape and murder, whilst letting the "hang em all" crowd to get their rocks off, good going guys, I'll bet you'll be rotting in hell right next to all the other child abusers.

Harsh?

Not really, that's why some people get away with it, if you can't prove the DNA is sound, that the amplification methods used were valid for the sample etc. then it becomes inadmisable, and has been.

@If you hate paedos so much, why don't you live there.

>I've never heard a convincing argument for how sharing child porn, for free, on KaZaA supports real abuse

no market=no product=no market=no product

"for free" is a distractor, in a different context "I've never heard a convincing argument for how sharing source code, for free, encourages people to write code" (dumbass)

Personally, I think child abusers should be removed from society perminently, dead or alive I don't care, should they be made to suffer? well, it's not a deterrant, stiffer sentences will only make abusers be more careful, and increase the need for a larger weight of evidence, one argument for increased rape convictions is to lower the sentences for rapists, then the weight of evidence doesn't have to be so great so we get more convictions, lighter sentences, more convictions, but then society gets to judge (jobs, reputation etc.), perhaps a conviction for rape will affect someone for life even with a lighter sentence?

Hmm

Why not organise a witch hunt while we're at it?

It's really easy to say "give him a harsher sentence because he's evil" because if anyone questions your view point you can just point at them and go "you support the raping of little girls, you're just as evil" and everyone can have a nice emotive response and then can all get together and form a lynch mob.

However...

From the article, what he was convinced of was sharing pictures. He may have *allegidly* abused his position of trust, done bad things to his sister or sold drugs to dodgy people - but that wasn't what he was being tried for. He got 33 years (which, I'm guessing, is effectively a life sentence) for sharing pictures. A crime in which all of the evidence is electronic. To my mind that's pretty concerning. You can now be locked up for the rest of your life for simply having the wrong collection of bits. I think this sets a very dangerous precedent. Sure, he may be guilty as sin but if we get into the habit of never questioning and actively supporting this kind of sentance for this magnitude of crime I do wonder who is next. Paedophiles are a really easy target because so few people would be willing to defend them for fear of being labelled as one, so who is next? People with unpopular political views - like Commies, I know they are all evil, or anyone who has said that a Muslim faith based government, in strongly Islamic parts of the world is a good idea, or how about some of the ultra-conservative Christians who want being gay outlawed?

So, yea, call for a harsher sentence, start an online petition for a lynch mob - just don't ask questions like 'is the sentance proportionate to the crime he is being prosecuted for' or 'is the purpose of jail retribution, rehabilitation or protecting society' and don't think that the person being sentanced is another human being and might not be a pure evil monster just like in the films.

And that's without getting started on the value of a pavlovian lynch mob response for framing people and destroying reputations.

Moronicism

"no market=no product=no market=no product"

But there's no evidence, at all, from anywhere, ever, that anyone sexually abuses [*] children *to create and distribute child porn* - rather, a small proportion of the bastards who abuse children because they like abusing children, also film themselves committing the abuse. Even according to the police, the victims in abuse pics discovered on the internet represent a genuinely negligible - like, 0.01% - fraction of reported child abuse victims (which is itself vastly lower than the actual number of child abuse victims).

So the suggestion that downloading images has any bearing at all on whether children are abused by others is simply a lie, and anyone who makes it is either misguided or deliberately misleading.

It's possible that there's a causal connection between viewing child abuse images and subsequently abusing children (and hence that someone who shares images is responsible for children being abused by the people who view them).

This isn't an obviously stupid view like the first one - still, it'd be hard to prove that one way or the other, since presumably people with an interest in abusing children are also going to be the people with an interest viewing said images (so the fact that Peter File looks at CP and then abuses a child doesn't prove *at all* that the CP led him to do it), and there's no evidence at all that it's true.

Back to this case specifically, it's pretty damn outrageous they let the sister testify - that'd be like trying someone for burglary, and then bringing in hearsay evidence that the crim in question was a murderer - i.e. completely irrelevant to the case, but likely to prejudice the jury against the defendant.

Finally, I hate having to be anonymous for this kind of thing - yay freedom of speech...

[*] online pictures of child abuse, of course, are perfectly legal - it's only when it's /sexual/ abuse (or nudity without any abuse, of course) that society has a problem with it. Us all, screwed up? Never.

Not Enough Hate! He Must Be One Of Them!

It's interesting to note how all the people defending the possibility that 33 years may be too harsh for someone who merely looked at and posessed images of recorded child abuse, (with no evidence that he ever touched a child in an inappropriate manner) have felt the need to post anonymously after the hatred expressed at paul.

I think people who can understand the difference between *owning a photograph of someone doing something terrible to someone* and the *act of doing something terrible to someone* need to stand up and be counted and not let the pitchfork-weilding, witch-burning mobs of this world drive us to cower in anonymity and fear their irrational views.

As if we, with our lack of emotion-clouded knee-jerk hatred are the ones with something to be ashamed of.

Full disclosure: yesterday I happened on the internet to stumble upon a photograph of a naked child who had been flayed of her skin by people throwing chemicals on her. I did not report myself to the police for my deviancy. The child's name was Phan Thị Kim Phúc.

According to some foolish people I'm as good as someone who wants to spray children with napalm.

33 years is appropriate for someone perpetrating the acts depicted, not for owning images of such acts.

My...

Let me make something clear. I'm not saying sharing child porn is OK, or harmless. But to act like it's the equivalent of committing rape himself is insanity.

I never knew child rapists were so public spirited. Is that really what these people do? Commit a felony on camera just for the knowledge that somebody enjoyed watching?

I always imagined they would want some compensation, if not pay than porn in trade, or access to the inner circle of the paedo ring or whatever. I don't think we know enough about the circumstances these videos were made in to say if sharing them in encourages it.

So, once more, I'm not saying what he did was OK, I'm just not convinced he did "33 years worth" of harm. I'm inclined to think the crime is punished so severely more because we regard it as tangible proof on of any "evil" mind than for any pragmatic reason.

(And in case anyone was too dense to figure it out, the title was spEak You’re bRanes reference.)

@Paul

You were trolling then? And you're still trolling. Just shut up or speak less offensively, please. I know you're looking for responses and will say that "I'm just trying to start a discussion", but there are better ways of doing it than coming across in the way you did on a very emotive issue and then insulting people. I'm not dense, but I didn't get the reference.

I agree that we don't know the circumstances the videos were made in (although I'd still like to hear a valid explanation for either (a) their existence, and (b) his possession of them); and, yes, 33 years is a long time (even considering that he will probably serve less than half of that); but "public spirited"? Pick your phrases better, please.

It is not rape, but he would not have it if rape had not been committed.

Not trolling

Honestly, I was surprised how many people responded to me directly. Could I have said it in a less inflammatory way? Yep. It just makes me mad when I see this kind of mob/which hunt behavior, even if it's only rhetoric (all the "no punishment is harsh enough", "throw him to 'Bubba'", "beat him to death with steel bricks" type comments). I hope my attitude didn't totally get in the way of my point.

As for why he had the videos, clearly there is no "valid" reason, he had them because he's perv. But it's very likely he got them the same way, over KaZaA (or similar). I'm sure if there was any suspicion he was involved in the production they would have prosecuted him for that too.

Public spirited... Well what would you call it when someone makes something just so other people can use it for free? Of course I was being ironic to apply the term to child rapists, but doesn't it seem unlikely that's a big motivation for them?

And yes he could not have had the videos if there had been no rape, but it doesn't logically follow that if he didn't have them there would be less rape. So any culpability there seems dilute at worst.

Now if we knew he paid for the movies that would be another matter. I wouldn't quite be ready to join in crying for blood and buggery, but I'd me more than happy to see him put away for a nice long time.

Such anger...

How would we have dealt with this chap had he personally raped several children, not merely looked at pictures of it?

This guy is a sick fuck, it's a given, but am I to assume that once we've caught the other guy, the one with the camera, he'll get, at the very least, life without parole?

As far as I know the death penalty can only be handed down when a murder has taken place, but given this case's severity (guaged by the sentence), it would seem the most appropriate response. After all, we can all agree that the person who took these photos has caused immeasurably more damage, shouldn't he suffer, at the very least, double the punishment?

Should we now expect to give the Death Penalty for rape? and reasonably, 10 years for statutory rape?

Could one of the normally passive commentors (who today are spitting bile and have their tar, noose and feathers at perfect readyness) could put personal feelings aside for thirty seconds and explain how to square this sentence against other, seemingly worse crimes.

@ those who directed responses @ Paul

Yes 33 years really is a bit harsh *relatively speaking* considering that the real abusers, if caught, would face less; heck the maximum sentence for murderers (doctor or not) is a lot less – are murderers (especially kiddie murderers) any better than paedos? HOWEVER, I should point out that the sentence was enhanced resulting from his abuse of a minor, so he wasn’t sentenced for 33 years simply for viewing/sharing images.

@ Chris C

Paul’s title is a variation of well known knee-jerk comments. The title actually made me laugh! I think you’ll find it applies perfectly to your own response.

Perhaps you should be isolated from the El Reg community for a length of time for being so offensive.

“In order to provide images and videos to these sick fucks, you need to ENGAGE IN CHILD ABUSE.”

That’s wrong! One only needs to distribute; engaging in isn’t necessary.

“Sharing music on file-sharing services encourages others to listen to the music.”

That may be, but the key point here is whether it encourage them to create more of it; doing so obviously doesn’t promote music or encourage music creation.

"In doing so he provided a service to hundreds of like-minded individuals, enabling those with a sexual interest in children to share indecent images and discuss further plans for abuse."

Looking at the rest of the quote in full:

“From the apparent ‘safety’ of his home, Cox spent hours each day planning, promoting and encouraging the abuse and exploitation of innocent young victims. In doing so he provided a service to hundreds of like minded individuals, enabling those with a sexual interest in children to share indecent images and discuss further plans for abuse”

It is clear that that particular paedo’s (cox) interests went well beyond merely sharing the material, indeed he was found guilty of “making … images and movies”; in the doc’s case, he merely shared. The two cases aren’t the same, hence the potential outcome needn’t necessarily apply.

Also, the quote seems to me like a non-sequitur. How does sharing such material enable discussion for further plans; surely such plans can be discussed anyway?

Your argument would arguably be correct if you said he was *trying* to make such acts appear acceptable; ultimately this is wrong too – I think you and the majority of people share my belief that no amount of sharing will ever make such acts acceptable. I reckon he shared merely to get more for himself – THIS IS HOW FILE SHARING WORKS!

@ Mike

“no market=no product=no market=no product”

That’s obviously incorrect and fallacious! Where there’s paedo - there’s a market (and hence invariably a product); there has always been, and at this rate always will be, a market.

For all the clucking, the link between sharing and the intent to produce has not yet been logically properly explained – it is intuitively sensible to suspect there is some sort of link but I’m yet to be shown exactly what it is. I will sincerely consider any given argument so long as the poster isn’t being offensive themselves. Don’t get me wrong – I will always unreservedly condemn anyone who commits paedo activities.

@ AC

“Why not inflict some of the pain and torture in the pics on the rapists child abusers / molesters see how they like it...”

I could agree - if murderers get the same treatment – but I cannot agree because the lawyers within our legal system often act for their own interests, so unjust outcomes are too frequent and miscarriages of justice are identified too late.

Consider this: we know a great proportion of homosexuals are so *not* by choice; can the same be said for paedos? If so what should we do; is our current ‘all stick, no carrot’ system the best approach?

A perspective ?

I just read about another paedo who just made the news. Peter Tobin has a long list of abhorrent offences, including (and very likely not limited to), multiples rapes of minors (he got 14 years), beating, rape and killing of a 23 year old (he got 21 years). His latest (conviction) is the raping and killing of a minor; for this latest conviction he got 30 years (before being eligible for parole, also cutting short the 21 year sentence).

When comparing these to what our doc got, I can’t help thinking that something somewhere is very wrong.

@ Blue

"Full disclosure: yesterday I happened on the internet to stumble upon a photograph of a naked child who had been flayed of her skin by people throwing chemicals on her. I did not report myself to the police for my deviancy. The child's name was Phan Thị Kim Phúc."